[Xel]

The limit to which socialists should speak of equality is classlessness and the limit to which we discuss 'freedom' is that the collective organization of production (which is already formed through and in the stage of capitalism) is unfettered by capitalist relations and at this point it would become a socialist mode of production.

As they should be. Could it be said that these versions of the concepts have origins in liberal capitalism?But it could be said they should never be thought of as 'more liberal than liberalism'.

I was not implying that these concepts were absolute. Freedom and Equality are just what I consider a 'good' (helpful, maximizing happiness) society to be based on. On the other hand, who knows what conceptions would develop.

Socialism could also be seen as making people be more aware of their practices by not alienating them from their labor?

[Vera Politica]

I was not implying that these concepts were absolute. Freedom and Equality are just what I consider a 'good' (helpful, maximizing happiness) society to be based on. On the other hand, who knows what conceptions would develop.

Treating something as a 'good' and advocating the maximization of good is one of the important frameworks to liberal theory. Many anti-liberals object to liberalism on this point: that maximizing the good and minimizing the bad is an oxymoron since 'badness' is often a consequence of 'goodness'. There cannot be freedom without non-freedom, no equality without inequality. I mean this in the concrete sense, not just in the conceptual semantic sense.

Socialism could also be seen as making people be more aware of their practices by not alienating them from their labor?

Depends. What do you mean by 'more aware' and what do you mean by 'alienation'?

In nature, freedom and equality don't exist in absolute forms. Human beings are ultimately enslaved to their own biological composition and the physical and social conditions they live in. I do not have the freedom to jump over buildings or to declare myself dictator of all peoples. Equality is also non-existant in nature as no two things are the same no matter how similar they may be, be they people or rocks.

Hmm, I think there is a bit of ethnological idealism here (i.e. anthropology). I would recommend reading Althusser's On Levi-Strauss. Anyway, to be more specific, I am suspect of the concept 'nature'... what does that mean? And human beings have shown, throughout history, the ability to defy physical limitations on the body. You can't jump over two buildings but you can certainly fly over them. Marx once referred to labor as a metabolic relationship with nature (Ch.7 Capital) But, again, the concept of nature is suspect. I think by nature we just mean the physical world, so to speak.... but to what extent can human be conceptually distinguished from that world and then to what extent can we say there is a thing 'a human' enslaved to the laws of nature? Aren't human beings bodies of nature? What does it mean to be enslaved to yourself?

[Xel]

Treating something as a 'good' and advocating the maximization of good is one of the important frameworks to liberal theory. Many anti-liberals object to liberalism on this point: that maximizing the good and minimizing the bad is an oxymoron since 'badness' is often a consequence of 'goodness'. There cannot be freedom without non-freedom, no equality without inequality. I mean this in the concrete sense, not just in the conceptual semantic sense.

I see. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Mill was after all, one of the main Liberal thinkers.
In the concrete sense? How do you mean? That in the way these concepts employ themselves materially

Depends. What do you mean by 'more aware' and what do you mean by 'alienation'?

If workers control the means of production, they see the results of their labor directly. They see themselves as the creators of wealth. They would be made 'more aware' of their role in the process of objects in their lives coming to be. Does that seem clear? I wish I knew a better way to say it.

[FallenRaptor]

Vera Politica:

Most sources seem to define 'nature' as the physicial world before interacting with human activity. This seems circular since human beings are also a part of the physical world, and by extension their activity. For now, at least, we'll just refer to nature as the physical world.

I'm not exactly sure what parts of my post were ethnological or idealist. The word 'enslaved' is probably too strong to describe what I meant, as obviously humans have achieved means of overcoming physical limitations to a certain extent. However, there are still physical limitations that don't allow humans to act 'freely', and these limitations are both internal and external to humans. Humans can't jump over buildings or avoid death, but they can take measures to go over buildings and extent their life.

I can't seem to find anything by Althusser called 'On Levi-Strauss', though, but I'll check it out if I ever find it.